devel February 2018

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

237 participants
244 discussions

upgrading RH 9 system->Fedora with iso files and apt only
by Didier Casse 17 Jan '22

17 Jan '22

I have the yarrow's iso files on my HD in a RH9 system. Let's say I want to upgrade selected packages using an "apt-get install" pointing to my iso-mounted files, how do I do it? i.e I mount the iso into some /mnt/yarrow1, /mnt/yarrow 2 etc.. Then what is the complete procedure to make my apt look into my own HD to upgrade packages. Can anybody redirect me to the correct resource or some literature hanging on the web? Thanks. Assume also that I do not wish to burn CDs! I do not want to use apt-cdrom. Thanks. With kind regards, Didier. --- PhD student Singapore Synchrotron Light Source (SSLS) 5 Research Link, Singapore 117603 Email: slsbdfc at nus dot edu dot sg \or\ didierbe at sps dot nus dot edu dot sg Website: http://ssls.nus.edu.sg

6 9

pdftk retired?
by Michael J Gruber 08 Sep '21

08 Sep '21

I just git a "broken dependencies" notice for a package that I maintain. The reason is that "pdftk" got retired just the other day. I may have missed a corresponding post on fedora-devel, but I think a heads up notice to maintainers of depending packages may be in order before you retire a package, as a general idea. You see, unretiring a package is so much more work than changing maintainership. As for pdftk: I see 2 failed builds for version 1.45 and none for the current version 2.02 (which probably breaks the api anyways). What are the plans? Retire pdftk completely? Start fresh with pdftk2? pdflabs, the maker of pdftk, provide binary as well as source rpms for pdftk 2.02, by the way. I might even look into packaging it but don't want to duplicate any existing efforts. Michael

17 26

Remove old GPG keys?
by Miroslav Suchý 04 May '21

04 May '21

I just stumbled upon https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/400634/does-anyone-bother-to-remov… with the nice link to: https://blog.laimbock.com/2014/05/02/how-to-remove-an-imported-gpg-key-from… And I wonder: is it a good idea to keep old gpg keys in RPM db? Or should we automate the removal of old keys? Mirek

15 29

git push permission denied
by Neal Becker 10 Feb '21

10 Feb '21

I just had to setup a new machine, and new ssh keys. I visited https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/user/edit/xxxx I chose my new id_rsa.pub to upload. But I get: git push --verbose Pushing to ssh://nbecker@pkgs.fedoraproject.org/mercurial Permission denied (publickey). fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly Hints?

4 5

Orphaning pykka
by Jonathan Dieter 05 Jan '20

05 Jan '20

I've just orphaned pykka (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package /rpms/pykka/) as I'm no longer using it. Jonathan

3 4

Intel's Clear Linux optimizations
by František Zatloukal 08 Feb '19

08 Feb '19

Hi, Phoronix recently release article[1] about Intel's Clear Linux with some cool graphs showing nice performance gain compared to Xubuntu. I didn't have time to dig in and look how it's performing against Fedora, but I'd assume Fedora can be compared to Xubuntu in terms of compiler settings. I think i'll be interesting to look into it and find out if Fedora can't tweak compiler settings (eg use LTO for critical things like Mesa, Kernel, ...). I think it could be interesting fo Fedora users to have this enabled if there are not any disadvantages other than compile time, compile memory usage and so on. What do you think? [1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel-clr-opengl&num=1 -- Best regards / S pozdravem, František Zatloukal Project Coordinator Red Hat

15 50

Python3 will be in next major RHEL release, please adjust %if statements accordingly
by Troy Dawson 04 Oct '18

04 Oct '18

Hello, Python3 will be in the next major RHEL release. I don't mean RHEL 7.6, but with numbers higher than 7. There are many, many packages with something like the following if 0%{?fedora} %define with_python3 1 %endif If you have something like that, please change it to something like this. if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} > 7 %define with_python3 1 %endif Thank You

21 40

kcov: code coverage for programs and python/shell scripts
by Dridi Boukelmoune 23 Aug '18

23 Aug '18

Greetings developers, I just submitted a review request [1] for kcov [2] that I recently discovered. It has no relation to Linux's kcov and is more akin to lcov, except that all it needs is a binary with DWARF debuginfo instead of requiring compile-time instrumentation. I came across kcov when I was looking for a way to measure code coverage in a Rust project and I'm impressed. It supposedly has a low overhead, but so far I've been monitoring small single-threaded programs so I can't really tell. I haven't tested python and shell support, although I have cases where it would be relevant, but I don't have time yet. The package itself is simple, but it bundles javascript and doesn't build on all main platforms so I may have to be granted an exception from some group starting with an F. Been busy lately, I'm a little behind on anything Fedora. If that's the case, please RTFM me a link to the wiki, and if you want to take the review I'll gladly take one in return. Cheers, Dridi [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=kcov [2] https://simonkagstrom.github.io/kcov/index.html

1 1

RANT: Packaging is changing too fast and is not well documented
by Richard Shaw 07 May '18

07 May '18

<RANT> So I went to request a new branch of an existing package only to find out fedrepo-req-branch, which hasn't been around that long is already depreceated and the facility brought into fedpkg... so: $ fedpkg request-branch <branch> Could not execute request_branch: The "token" value must be set under the "fedpkg.pagure" section in your "fedpkg" user configuration Ok, so where does that get stored? $ man fedpkg (not in there...) $ vi /usr/share/doc/fedpkg/README (not in there...) I figured out somewhere else that the default config is in /etc/rpkg/fedpkg.conf (In /etc/rpkg? That's intuitive!) but I didn't want to add my token to the site wide config so the search continues... $ rpm -ql fedpkg (pokes around) $ vi /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedpkg/__main__.py ... def main(): default_user_config_path = os.path.join( os.path.expanduser('~'), '.config', 'rpkg', '%s.conf' % cli_name) ... Found it! Now which token do I need? The one from the src.fedoraproject.org pagure or pagure.io? Oh and the tokens expire all the time and don't seem to have any helper scripts to automate updating of the tokens so I have to remember where they all are and manually edit them every time... </RANT> Not coming from a programming background I found the learning curve pretty steep when I first tried to become a packager, I'm not sure I wouldn't have given up if I had to do it now. Thanks, Richard

10 10

[RFC] Replace glibc's libcrypt with libxcrypt for Fedora 29/30
by Björn 'besser82' Esser 01 Apr '18

01 Apr '18

Hello everyone, since there has been some discussion in the last time about removing libcrypt from glibc in some time [1,2,3,4] and splitting it out into a separate project which can evolve quicker, I'd like to hear your oppinion about replacing glibc's libcrypt with libxcrypt [5] for Fedora 29 (or 30). libxcrypt will be fully binary compatible with software linked against glibc's libcrypt and does not require any rebuilds. However, the converse is not true: programs linked against libxcrypt will not work with glibc's libcrypt. It comes with a set of extended interfaces pioneered by Openwall Linux, crypt_rn, crypt_ra, crypt_gensalt, crypt_gensalt_rn, and crypt_gensalt_ra. Also, programs that use certain legacy APIs supplied by glibc's libcrypt (encrypt, encrypt_r, setkey, setkey_r, and fcrypt) cannot be compiled against libxcrypt. The crypt and gensalt functions are supporting all (except for Crypt16, which was used on Ultrix and Tru64, only) widely used password hashing algorithms [6], which before were specific to just some operating system's implementations of libcrypt [7]. There are preperations to add password hashing with PBKDF2 using HMAC- SHA3-512 to libxcrypt as well. Anyways, before this can happen, there is still some work to be done with libxcrypt, like adding a FIPS mode or FIPS compliance in a different way. Cheers, Björn [1] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-06/msg00055.html [2] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-06/msg00079.html [3] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-08/msg01257.html [4] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-08/msg01408.html [5] https://github.com/besser82/libxcrypt [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypt_(C)#Key_derivation_functions_s upported_by_crypt [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypt_(C)#Support_in_operating_syste ms

6 10

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

devel February 2018